[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

I think torpedoes in ship editor could be reworked:

-Add 2 speeds, slower but longer range, faster but shorter range.

-Remove "standard torpedo" and put "wet heater torpedo" instead.

-add other kinds of old torpedoes such as compressed air, flywheel... especially for dreadnoughts era

[Diesel engine: pros and cons.]

On 5/19/2020 at 9:32 PM, Hardlec said:

The technical superiority of the diesel, as I understand it, is that Steam engines are vastly more efficient, easier to build and easier to operate.  The problem is their fuel.  Hot Steam is the fuel of a steam engine, the hotter the better.  To use a steam engine, you must carry with you a way to make fuel.  This is usually done by burning something, like coal, and using that heat to vaporize water.  Steam gets hotter if it's under more pressure.  The extra reinforcement needed to handle this pressure means more weight in the "fuel refinement plant" aka the boiler.  While the energy losses of the hot steam in the engine, i.e. potential energy of the steam versus actual output in power anr small, the energy losses of the fuel burned to heat water are enormous.  
When you have a nuclear kettle providing vast amounts of heat very efficiently, that heat can be used to generate steam, and the steam engine becomes the most wonderful engine there is.
A diesel engine can use diesel fuel, already refined.  It's the more efficient fuel, not the more efficient engine, that rules the day here.

However, steam engines can run on any type of fuel they see.

Especially, coal. I love coal.

Coal can be used as a really nice armor.

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

My opinions on the game so far:

-Lacks some freedom when making ships, I think, as everyone else, that most snap points shouldn't be a thing.

-Customizable hulls part by part. You answered to this previously that you experimented with this. Yes, it increases the time spent while making ships. but that is exactly why we are here for.At least make this a feature, an option to select "separate hull parts Y/N" So that some of us players can take their time and make the hull of their dream.

-2 main guns needed, secondary tower needed. No, please let us do what ever we want, place the main tower everywhere, no secondary tower should we chose to do so. A rangefinder doesn't need 2 towers, but 2 towers should have with long range targeting.

-Add more spots for underwater torpedo launchers. All along the ship. Look where mikasa's launchers were placed, we can't do that in game.

 

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

On 5/25/2020 at 6:41 PM, DougToss said:

An aside, but what mission could this ship fulfill that whatever number of smaller vessels built for the same cost could not? What is the mission and why is that ship the right choice for the mission?

A large light (or protected) cruiser might be overkill for a raider, but size allows for extended range and faster, more reliable propulsion. That size being much smaller than a BC, but still larger than typical for a light or protected cruiser of whatever year it is, in both own and competitor fleets. That makes sense, in certain circumstances. A lightly armoured ship like that could be a valuable raider, a more heavily armoured one could scout for the battle line, though both would probably be more expensive for their mission than conventionally sized light/protected cruisers. The added size, and hence attendant protection would probably be wasted for scouting, as a scout should not be employed in a way that takes it under the fire of guns any heavier than its own. It should certainly have the mobility to stay out of the fire of armoured cruisers and the enemy line, because that's the critical mission of a scout. If it trades protection for mobility, it's not really a scout is it? What do you learn through "reconnaissance by being fired-at" that you couldn't learn from not taking that fire? 

Chasing off enemy CLs is the mission for armoured cruisers, so there is not really a benefit to over-protecting the CL in anticipation of that mission. After all, a ship well armed and protected enough to do that is probably not going to be able to evade enemy CAs, and so might as well be one. Using a 20000tn vessel to chase away scouts and screens is just asking for a torpedo, and with that armament you would have to be well within their torpedo range to pose a credible threat, while yourself presenting a massive target. You'll either end up designing a CA or a CL without a viable doctrine or mission. 

Using a battlecruiser hull with light armament is conceptually flawed for at least those reasons. As a scout, the tremendous size and cost is completely wasted. If it is armoured like a CL at that size, it is just a huge, fragile target. If armoured like a BC, then it is protected against targets it itself can't fight. If it can't engage the targets it is protected against, why is it coming under their fire in the first place? 

It's a ship without a doctrine or a mission or at best with a doctrine or mission that could be better accomplished by a lesser vessel for lesser cost or several lesser vessels for the same cost. 

Now if you say, "because I want to" and "it's fun", well I have to give it to you. It's entirely subjective and I'm not against people having fun! 🥳

 I'm just saying there are many, many reasons why certain designs were never theorized or built, and because ship design and naval combat is not intuitive, design limitations channel players into areas where they will find success independent of them having theoretical knowledge of the subject. 

Ships like the Scharnhorst exist.

Had small guns to raid convoys.